coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant, Mr Vadim Fedorovych Bakalov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born on 23 February 1970 and currently resides in Odessa. He is represented before the Court by Aleksandr Kazarnovskiy, a lawyer practicing in Odessa.
6.  On 24 September 1997 the applicant was apprehended by police officers of the Leninskiy District Police Department of Odessa.
7.  On 25 September 1997 the applicant's house was searched, during which ammunition was found.
8.  On 30 September 1997 the applicant was charged with storing ammunition (Article 222-1 of the Criminal Code) and a criminal investigation was initiated against him.
9.  On 26 December 1997 the investigation was terminated due to lack of proof.
10.  On 25 August 1998 the applicant lodged complaints with the Kievsky District Court of Odessa, claiming unlawful detention, and the unlawful search and seizure of some of his property. The applicant alleged that the search was conducted without a warrant and that no ammunition had been found. He also sought compensation for moral damage caused by the unlawful police action.
11.  On 16 August 1999 the Kievsky District Court of Odessa allowed the applicant's claims and ordered the State Treasury to pay the applicant UAH 82,472[1] in compensation.
12.  On 6 June 2000 the Odessa Regional Court partly quashed this decision as regards compensation for material damage, which it remitted for fresh consideration to the Kievsky District Court of Odessa, which at a later date awarded the applicant UAH 2,020[2] in compensation for pecuniary damage. It also ordered the State Treasury to pay the applicant UAH 50,000[3] in compensation for moral damage.
13.  On 31 October 2001 the applicant complained to the State Treasury about the non-execution of the judgment of 6 June 2000 given in his favour.
14.  On 15 November 2001 the State Treasury informed the applicant that no funds were available for such payments in the 1999-2001 State budgets.
15.  On 29 January 2002 the applicant requested the State Treasury to execute the judgment of 6 June 2000.
16.  On 26 February 2002 the State Treasury informed the applicant there was no statutory procedure for the payment of compensation and therefore no payment was possible.
17.  On 15 May 2002 the National Bank transferred UAH 2,020 to the applicant in compensation for pecuniary damage.
18.  On 10 December 2002 the National Bank transferred UAH 50,000 to the applicant in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Pula, Croatia.
5.  On 3 May 1991 his goods stored in a kiosk in Zadar, Croatia, were damaged by unknown perpetrators.
6.  On 16 June 1992 he instituted civil proceedings before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia and an insurance company for his damaged property.
7.  On 17 May 1999 the Zadar Municipal Court stayed the proceedings in respect of the Republic of Croatia pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima). On the same date it decided to separate the proceedings in respect of the insurance company.
8.  On 16 May 2002 the Zadar Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s claim against the insurance company. The applicant did not appeal.
9.  The proceedings in respect of the Republic of Croatia resumed on 5 December 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija).
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Crikvenica, Croatia.
5.  On 6 July 1992 his weekend house in Nin, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
6.  On 18 May 1993 he instituted civil proceedings before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.
7.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima), the Zadar Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 17 December 1998.
8.  The proceedings resumed on 24 October 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija).
9.  On 20 February 2004 the Zadar Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s claim for damages. The applicant appealed and the case is now apparently pending before the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru).
6.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Zagreb.
7.  In 1994 the applicant’s weekend house in Karlobag, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 12 May 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 2 April 1996.
10.  On 25 November 2002 the applicant complained about the stay on his proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court to the Constitutional Court. It would appear that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court are still pending.
11.  The proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court resumed on an uncertain date pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).
6.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Zagreb.
7.  On 13 or 14 July 1992 the applicant’s house in Sukošan, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 7 July 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 9 February 1996.
10.  On 7 November 2002 the applicant complained about the stay on his proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court to the Constitutional Court. It would appear that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court are still pending.
11.  The proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court resumed on an uncertain date pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).
12.  On 26 September 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on the basis of its lack of jurisdiction. The applicant appealed and the case is now apparently pending before the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).
6.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1959, respectively and live in Varaždin, Croatia.
7.  On 5 December 1991 the applicants’ house in Nedeljanec, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 14 November 1994 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Varaždin Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Varaždinu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for their damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Varaždin Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 17 September 1996.
10.  The proceedings resumed on 24 October 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).
6.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Split, Croatia.
7.  On 23 December 1991 the applicant’s house in Špišić Bukovica, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 31 October 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Virovitica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Virovitici) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for her damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Virovitica Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 7 February 1996.
10.  The proceedings resumed on 29 October 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).
11.  On 22 March 2004 the Virovitica Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on the basis of its lack of jurisdiction. The applicant appealed and the case is now apparently pending before the Virovitica County Court (Županijski sud u Virovitici).
6.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Zagreb.
7.  On 5 March 1992 the applicant’s house in Sukošan, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 23 February 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on an uncertain date.
10.  The proceedings resumed on 1 December 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).
6.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Zagreb.
7.  On 13 or 14 April 1993 the applicant’s house in the vicinity of Gospić, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 23 December 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for her damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 2 May 1996.
10.  On 7 November 2002 the applicant complained about the stay on her proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court to the Constitutional Court. It would appear that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court are still pending.
11.  The proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court resumed on 9 December 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).
7.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Milan.
8.  A.C., the applicant’s father, was the owner of a flat in Milan, which he had let to V.S.
9.  In a registered letter of 9 November 1990, the applicant’s father informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
10.  The tenant told the applicant’s father that he would not leave the premises.
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 22 January 1991, the applicant’s father reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 21 March 1991, which was made enforceable on 26 March 1991, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.
13.  On 11 January 1993, the applicant’s father served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
14.  On 25 February 1993, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 March 1993.
15.  Between 19 March 1993 and 18 April 2000, the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant’s father and then the applicant were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  In the meanwhile, on 24 August 1993, the applicant’s father died and the applicant inherited the flat.
17.  On 14 February 2000, she became party to the proceedings.
18.  On 15 June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
19.  Pursuant to the Pinto Law, on 3 April 2002 the applicant applied to the Brescia Court of Appeal. By decision of 12 June 2002, the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s claim. As far as the conduct of the relevant authorities were concerned, the Court of Appeal underlined that the behaviour of the Prefect was in conformity with the criteria fixed by the national law and that after the Law no. 431/98 the expulsion was suspended by other laws. So the delays derived from factum principis and were therefore irrelevant for the purpose of the Pinto Law.
20.  The applicant did not appeal to the Court of Cassation.
6.  The applicants were born in 1932 and 1928, respectively and live in Sisak, Croatia.
7.  On 1 July 1992 the applicants’ weekend house in Sukošan, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 9 May 1995 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for their damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 6 December 1999.
10.  On 7 November 2002 the applicants complained about the stay on their proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court to the Constitutional Court. It would appear that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court are still pending.
11.  The proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court resumed on 4 December 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).
12.  On the same date the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed the applicants’ claim on the basis of its lack of jurisdiction. The applicants appealed and the case is now apparently pending before the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).
4.  Ms Valentyna Mykolayivna Derkach, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1962. Mr Mykola Ivanovych Palek, is also a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1957. Both applicants reside in the town of Vyshgorod, Ukraine.
5.  In 2001-2002 the applicants instituted separate sets of proceedings in the domestic local courts seeking the recovery of salary arrears and other payments against their former employer-the State-owned “Atomspetsbud” company which carried out construction work in Chernobyl, more precisely in the zone subject to compulsory evacuation.
6.  By a decision of the Vyshgorodsky District Court of Kiev Region of 5 March 2002, Ms Valentyna Derkach was awarded UAH 9,133 (the equivalent of 1,405.08 euros [“EUR”]) in salary arrears and compensation. The decision came into force. On 22 April 2002 the Slavutsky District Department of the State Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings.
7.  By a decision of the Vyshgorodsky District Court of Kiev Region of 15 May 2002, Mr Mykola Palek was awarded UAH 15,476 (the equivalent of EUR 2,380.92) in salary arrears and compensation. The decision came into force. On 8 August 2002 the Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.
8.  On 29 June 2002 the Ministry of Energy decided to wind-up the debtor company, given its unprofitability. On 18 July 2002 a liquidation commission was established.
9.  In December 2002 the writs of execution in both cases were forwarded to the liquidation commission.
10.  The judgments remain unenforced, in particular due to the fact that the debtor's property could not be attached to enforce the judgments. Attachment would have required a special authorisation of the Ministry for Emergencies due to the location of the debtor's property in the Chernobyl area, contaminated by radiation. Authorisation was not granted.
6.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Split, Croatia.
7.  On 2 February 1992 his house in Kaštel Novi, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
8.  On 9 January 1995 he instituted civil proceedings before the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.
9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Split Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 15 September 1998.
10.  The proceedings resumed on 20 November 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).
5.  The applicant, Mr Igor Samoylovich Dubenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1949 and currently resides in Artemivsk, the Donetsk Region.
6.  In March 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Artemivsk City Court against the Komsomolets State Mine seeking to recover salary and compensation due to him.
7.  On 26 April 2000 the Artemivsk City Court awarded the applicant UAH 5,270.38[1] in compensation (UAH 2,946.98 in salary arrears and UAH 2,323.4 in compensation for the delayed settlement).
8.  On 10 May 2000 a writ of execution was issued and sent to the Mykytivsky District Bailiffs' Service of Gorlivka (the “Bailiffs”) for the enforcement of the judgment.
9.  The execution proceedings were initiated on 7 September 2000 by the Bailiffs, who instituted separate proceedings with regard to the payment of the salary arrears and the compensation for the delayed settlement.
10.  On 15 September 2000 the writs of execution were presented to the Gorlivka branch of Bank Nadra where the mining company had its account.
11.  On 24 April 2001 the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the judgment of 26 April 2000 could not be executed due to the mine's lack of funds. It also informed the applicant that he was no. 191 in the list of creditors who sought to recover their debts.
12.  On 26 February 2002 the applicant informed the Court that the execution proceedings were still pending.
13.  On 6 May 2003 the Bailiffs lodged an application with the Artemivsk City Court seeking to replace the debtor in the enforcement proceedings by the Artemvugillia State Company. On 20 June 2003 the court allowed this request. The Artemvugillia was ordered to pay the applicant UAH 2,946.98[2] in compensation.
14.  On 24 June 2003 the Bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings for the payment of UAH 2,946.98 and remitted the execution writs to the Gorlivka District Bailiffs' Service, which had the relevant jurisdiction.
15.  On 1 July 2003 the writ of execution was assigned to a bailiff who, on 2 July, instituted enforcement proceedings in the applicant's case.
16.  On 3 July 2003 the Artemvugillia transferred the funds due to the applicant to the deposit accounts of the Mykytivsky District and Gorlivka District Departments of Justice which were enforcing the two writs in the applicant's favour.
17.  On 4 July 2003 the sum UAH 2,323.4 for the delay in settlement was transferred to the applicant's bank account in accordance with payment order no. 195.
18.  On 7 July 2003 the enforcement of this part of the judgment was discontinued in view of its execution.
19.  On 9 July 2003 the remainder of the sum due to the applicant (UAH 2,946.98) was transferred to the applicant's bank account in accordance with payment order no. 219.
20.  On 21 January 2004 the applicant informed the Court that he had received the full amount of the award. However, he complained that he had received no compensation for the further delays in enforcement. He also complained that he had to pay bank fees for the transfer made to him.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Bjelovar, Croatia.
5.  On 6 November 1994 the applicant was arrested on suspicion that he had committed murder. On the same date he was detained on remand at Bjelovar County Prison (Okružni zatvor Bjelovar).
6.  On 9 November 1994 the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru) opened an investigation against the applicant.
7.  On 5 December 1994 the Bjelovar County State Attorney’s Office (Okružno državno odvjetništvo Bjelovar) indicted the applicant for murder.
8.  On 21 December 1994 the first hearing was held before the Bjelovar County Court.
9.  On 26 April 1995 the County Court found the applicant guilty of murder. It held that the applicant had exceeded the force necessary for self-defence and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment.
10.  On 15 May 1995 the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment. The County State Attorney’s Office also filed an appeal.
11.  On 16 August 1995 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) quashed the first-instance judgment for factual shortcomings and remitted the case.
12.  In the resumed proceedings, on 16 October 1995 the County Court found the applicant guilty of manslaughter. It sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. On the same date the applicant was released since the time he had spent in pre-trial detention was credited against his sentence.
13.  On 30 October 1995 the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment. The County State Attorney’s Office also filed an appeal.
14.  On 18 November 1997 the Supreme Court again quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. It held that the first-instance court had failed to state any reasons refuting the applicant’s argument that he had acted in self-defence.
15.  In the resumed proceedings, the County Court held hearings on 11 February 1998 and 3 April 1998. On 3 April 1998 the County Court again found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment.
16.  On 27 April 1998 the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment. The County State Attorney’s Office also filed an appeal.
17.  On 28 August 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals as ill-founded and upheld the first-instance judgment. The Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicant’s counsel on 8 October 2001.